guest: $800,000. host: what is the main goal? guest: to support the idea of open media in the country. and to say what are the basic rights, and what open media and access to information, free information, and access to free information is for its citizens? it is something that almost is new for afghan citizens, and they are very eager to know it. host: how does your organization keep its independence, or how are you teaching independence to its journalists, given that the united states funds operations? guest: while we are receiving money, we are never focusing on what are our goals.

indeed, we are receiving money from ucid. they are supporting the measures we are having. host: what other countries are funding? guest: we are receiving money from other european countries. host: how many journalists -- are you teaching them? how many aspiring journalists do you have in this program? guest: from the beginning from 2004 up until now, we have provided training for more than 9000 journalists across the country. what we're teaching, the basics in the fundamental, investigative reporting, technical training, and how to present the program, how to do what you're doing now.

host: your in the u.s., based in afghanistan, what are you doing here in washington? guest: i am here to say that open media in afghanistan is a big achievement. not only for the public, but for everyone i want to say that this is a big achievement after 11 years we lost more than 39 journalists from 2001 up until now, more than hundreds of injuries, more than thousands of arrests and people who were insulted and faced with harassment. let's not lose this achievement. a side of focus on security forces, stress fractures in afghanistan, focusing on media for lots of afghan people.

afghans are quite aware what is freedom of expression and how they can use it in their daily lives. let's focus on it and not lose it. host: while you're in u.s., are you having to justify the money you are receiving? guest: yes, i have to justify the money we are receiving and say that not only for nai media institute, or the organizations we are receiving the money from, from ucid, the sector, the deal is something to really need focus. it is something to not forget it. host: how to afghanis receive their news? guest: we have different tools of receiving information and afghanistan. the very important tool for afghans is radio all over the country. tv station is mostly popular in the cities like kabul and other

main cities we have. like kabul from nowadays we're having social media like facebook and twitter that people are receiving the news. but more than 73% of the population of afghanistan is receiving their information through radio. host: what about the literacy rates? in afghanistan, according to the cia fact book, literacy rate overall is 28%. given those numbers, how difficult is it your job of getting information to afghanis?

guest: when you see almost 28% of the country is literate, meaning more than 72% mark is illiterate, that means we are faced with people they are not easy to receive things or digest things, so it is very hard in a country like afghanistan with the fact that more than 70% are illiterate, on the other hand, in afghanistan security, reaching for the people because of bad [indiscernible] because of the geographic afghanistan, it is hard work, but it does not mean it will stop us. host: our guest abdul mujeeb khalvatgar is director of nai media institute.

we're talking about journalism in afghanistan, how afghanis get their news and the freedom of the press in that country. we want to take your phone calls on this. the numbers -- here is the world news section of the "wall street journal." afghan peace still sought in six months. i am wondering, is this the type of headlines afghanis would see, the second to read the newspapers or have the newspapers, are the headlines the same? guest: international media in general, we're having to the levels of international media in afghanistan. [indiscernible] it is direct access to that kind of publication of international. for example, bbc. it's especially the papers,

they're not in our own language, and it is a kind of fee for our publication. most of the overall issues and topics like this is coming to international media, said it is not the same topic that we will be facing in kabul, somehow reflects this. host: when troops begin to leave out of afghanistan, resources and money starts to the from the u.s., what does that mean for your efforts? guest: in general, cutting off the funds a meeting of the troops will affect us in different ways. if the money is decreasing, indeed we will be having less funds and less funds consequently means less

activities, when we are facing with decreasing of troops it means in some instances less security. security will be provided by afghanistan's, that means less place to be covert. in general, it is affecting a lot of our work, but through the plans and through the hopes and the ways that we are forcing from now, we will do as much as possible and as best as possible to not face with any kind of stopping of our work when there is less funds and troops. host: let's get our viewers involved. independent, texas.

caller: we know the afghanistan people are having a hard time taking care of their families and feeding themselves. how do they feel about blackwater and halliburton, how they miss use our money over here in america by spending on stuff they necessarily do not need and just waste? how do they feel about that? guest: thank you for the call. i will answer this not as a politician. 12 years back from now, money was something with the situation of the people was quite different. for example, people had families that have breakfast but not lunch and dinner. there were families that had dinner but not breakfast and lunch.

now, people are having this opportunity -- i started with just eating and food because people now have the opportunity to work and have breakfast, lunch, and dinner. it is a change in their lives. misusing of the money -- by myself as a normal afghan, do not agree with this term of misusing of the money. host: you do not what with the term? guest: i don't agree that the term misusing funds in afghanistan. people in afghanistan need it for infrastructure, for their lives. for the future, this money. but it does not mean that this money is something that needed forever.

it would be a time we can do the infrastructure, planning properly, and then in the future we can somehow contribute to the war. host: democratic caller, virginia. caller: i think abdul has good intention, but the reality is, afghanistan is based on tribe. it does not matter whether you are a reporter or not. if you criticize -- today, your life is short. if you criticize the pashtuns, the taliban will come after you. i want ask abdul, do you have protection if you say something that the taliban does not like? because we know karzai's brother was a big man in afghanistan and anytime someone criticized, that person never sees the day of life again.

afghanis are good people, but the reality of freedom of press to me is like a joke. you cannot have freedom of press in afghanistan. afghanistan is based on tribe. -- based on tribes. host: can you hang on the line while we get an answer and then come back to you? guest: i think what john is saying is really not the reality of afghanistan. i would put it this way. i don't know if he can get the kind of subscription we have in afghanistan. you can go to my facebook, twitter, and also to my blog and see what i am doing. how i as a reporter, in a normal citizen, a journalist, criticize the government, criticized karzai, criticized -- the way

people are somehow creating the problems, it does not mean what they are pashtuns or -- anyone, criticizing just coming and killing people and doing anything they want, but i am a normal citizen. i do not have any bodyguards. i am traveling every year from kabul to kandahar, back to jalalabad and back to kabul. two ways of protection for journalists. first of all, the kind of [indiscernible] organizations there providing safe houses and security advisers, providing any kind of advisers that journalists has. host: so that secure it exists for reporters? guest: it exists. host: and you're able to criticize karzai? guest: i am able to criticize karzai, write with taliban is

doing. for example, a leader, i can write what they're doing. this is the reality of afghanistan that we are able to criticize karzai without being, for example, without being assaulted by him. host: john, are you from afghanistan? caller: no, but i am understanding how the world works. i have a lot of afghan friends. the reality is, what i have seen in afghanistan is based on tribe. freedom of press is short. i want ask your guest, how many of press that it killed in afghanistan when they criticize one of the leaders in that country?

guest: this is a good question. how many journalists get killed when they criticize the leaders? the president or vice presidents are anybody in afghanistan, consequently resulted killing from 2001 up till now, we lost 39 journalists across the country. not because of criticizing, but because of the kind of exclusions they were reporting from and the second explosion happened for these kinds of things. host: the 2013 world press freedom index put together by these reporters without borders ranked afghanistan 128th. you can see the comparison between the u.s. and iraq. afghanistan climbed 22 rankings from 2012. guest: i want to say comparing

2011 and 2012, afghanistan moved 22 seats above. it means the numbers for 2012. host: i see it. clarified. got it. thank you. guest: the problem. back to the question from john, the taliban is not not having a big center and any province of afghanistan. they are coming -- their limits in the freedom of expression. they are trying to report any tourism -- they're trying not to report from tourism, but not having that much power to limit

everything in afghanistan. host: a human rights article from july 2012 says there was a media law going through the legislature there in afghanistan. under it that, the word choice of media outlets would be controlled by the government. does that exist? is that on the books today? what are the laws pertaining to media? guest: media law is one of the best in the region. the current media law. but through some kind of force from the government, starting to revise the media law that came with the new draft in july which you indicated. the government at that time submitted or came with was comparing to the current law was a back lot and was given

lots of power to the government to control media. nai leaked a kind of national efforts and gathering to this and stop the process of government, now it is not going to be a kind of force of this regard to review the law. the current law is somehow seems to be the lot in the future, too. host: the current law stands. guest: it depends on what is going on what will be the other things, especially the international engagement and forces engagement in afghanistan. but in general, what could i say that what we are having now in the sector of freedom of expression in afghanistan and the sector of media, in 10 years from now, i am saying that we will be having more literate people, having more

people that could support freedom of expression and free media, and i am assuming that not having the number of outlets doubled from now but at least we will be having hundreds of radio stations across the country and hundreds of papers, and almost 10 tv stations across the country. host: republican caller, james. caller: my question is, does the taliban published media? and is there -- what would he like to see the americans do before we totally withdraw in 2014? host: can ask you and your first question, are you asking if the taliban has its own media outlet? caller: yes, and to the published regularly? do they have access to reporters or have access to

taliban spokespersons? host: got it. guest: first of all, the taliban does not have any publication in afghanistan, but some papers in pakistan. they are able to distribute their papers in bordering provinces. it is not a lot. there is a mobile radio that claims to be from taliban and some of the bordering provinces of afghanistan, but it is not a permanent radio station. as i said, it is mobile. sometimes it is on, and sometimes it is off. a taliban spokesperson, they're having access to a number of telephone numbers of journalists. they are sending voice messages or calling journalists if there is any activity from them. they're just sending messages and things.

host: to get their side out? guest: to say what they think about an issue. host: to independent journalists? guest: to any kind of journalist. yes. what is needed from american troops before they withdraw in 2014, as i say, let's focus more and more and more on this kind of citizen rights like freedom of expression, it is sentimental and very important. 10 years, 12 years back from now, without a whip could drive village people from one place to another place. now demonstrators and not being stopped with armed police. it means people got rights. one of the -- let's focus more on this before withdrawal of afghanistan.

host: democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have one question for abdul mujeeb khalvatgar and one comment. i was in afghanistan december 10 and i witnessed for myself in kandahar city the danger from the afghan government, including from the taliban, propaganda throughout afghanistan was massive and i also have a question, how of the -- what he thinks once the american troops pull their troops out, what is going to happen afterwards? host: we talked about that a little bit, but go ahead. guest: thank you for the question but the problem of propaganda in some places like propaganda or worsens is something that people are being

suffered by, but it does not mean it is the general picture of me get afghanistan. as a media person, i could surely say that a side of this propaganda from taliban, we do have print, tv station and radio stations. what will be happening after 2014 after the withdrawal of forces from afghanistan first of all, as a normal citizen, i'm not hoping a full withdrawal of american citizens -- troops after 2014. as an afghan, i think we need more assistance, long-term existence of the forces in afghanistan.

we have neighboring countries to assist. there is a need for long-term existence of forces in afghanistan, but if a full withdrawal after forces means there'll be a number but not that much we have now, that number will help us to not go back to the 1990's or 1998 or 1996. >> abdul mujeeb khalvatgar is executive director of nai media institute, which is supporting open media in afghanistan. that is our topic here this morning. taking your questions and comments about the press and afghanistan. guest:

guest: democracy is something that depends to what geography you want to define it. in afghanistan, we do want democracy but indeed it would be different from the u.n. states or countries -- the united states or countries in europe. we do not want the tribal way of life in afghanistan we got rid of that style of life. we do want democracy. as an afghan and normal citizen i am saying this. but we do need it. we should define it in our own way. but it doesn't mean we are defining it in our own way that it would be different. it will be defined according to the tradition of afghanistan, according to the relations of the people of afghanistan that we need democracy. host: ohio, republican caller. go ahead. caller: i am trying to understand if he believes in islamic law and if he believes

in liberties, why did the press not come out against the actual almost execution of people that converted from muslim to question? and why do we as americans not understand that islamic law is complete domination of christians and jews and exclusion from any of the activities of the state? guest: i am not the kind of islamic or religion scholar, but as a muslim i would say what is against humanity is against -- is not accepted by me as a muslim and i us as muslims in afghanistan. we do have our own definition islam and democracy, but i think it is not the way that was somehow understood in general here.

we are believers in democracy and not on the sways of islam. host: the world press freedom index that we showed earlier showed the united states 32nd and afghanistan 128. i want to take that question and ask that about afghanistan. who is restricting the press? guest: the problems we're facing in afghanistan when i am saying "we" it means media people and media community. inside the government of afghanistan sometimes, the people who are fighting with the government, taliban, for example, and some local governments across the country,

these are the three main barriers that we are facing with all that we have the constitution, the article 34 is just granting access free media and freedom of information. the article 50 is granting access to information. all of the media unfortunately, the three elements that i was saying about are the three elements that we are facing with problem through them in afghanistan. host: what was and is like under the taliban? how has it changed? guest: let's say this, we had only one radio station, and no tv station at all, and there were a few papers.

they were managed and run by the government, by taliban in afghanistan. it is quite understandable that when government or when power is managing the news what it should be looking like, so no news at all about people, no news at all about the kind of demons of the public, but was all about with the taliban think and thought at that time. now we have more than 54 tv stations across the country. 160 -- host: are those mostly local? guest: national and local, most of the radio stations are local. we have 214 papers across the country, most of them are independent.

that means you can see, you can imagine the change, with the change looks like. host: are those newspapers, radio stations, owned by individuals or by corporations like they are some in the united states? guest: a few of them are owned by corporations, but mostly by community and by individuals. host: is there an industry set up for advertising marketing? guest: not a proper system of marketing as it is here in the united states, but we have organizations or we have media outlets that they are self sustainable so they're having a good marketing system. not an organization to do marketing for other media outlets, but being the kind of outlets themselves and the organizations that are running the media they're doing the

marketing. host: 1 last phone call, independent color, new york. the house is about to come in. make it quick. caller: given the last call i heard either the xenophobic or jingalism, what kind of plans or policies does your guest have for that media you are creating coming back to other parts of the world rather than just being for afghanis? host: he wants to know what plans you have in place to make sure the journalists that you are training don't just stay in afghanistan but go to other parts of the world? guest: i think plans for having a kind of network and connections not only in afghanistan, but across the world is something that's rehabing a plan in two ways. a first of all, through cyber networks and we're having a

kind of affiliation with other organizations outside of afghanistan. afghanistan. in washington, d.c. so they are providing this space for me to come here and talk to you. these are the ways that we are doing our best to connect journalists not only in afghanistan, together, but worldwide. host: thank you very much for talking to our viewers. we appreciate it. guest: thank you. and have a nice day. >> on the next washington journal, former ohio congressman steve latourette, now president and c.e.o. of the republican mainstreet partnership. he talks about the role moderate republicans in congress will play in fiscal matters. such as planned pudget cuts scheduled for march 1. kim gandhi, president and c.e.o. of the national network to end domestic violence, zusms the renewal of the violence against women act. being debated in the senate. and victor cha, center for vat

jick and international stud i.r.s. looks at north korean nuclear ability. washington journal live on c-span. next a conversation with general electric c.e.o. jeffrey immelt. after that, the weekly addresses by president obama and alaska senator lisa murkowski. then funeral service for former new york city mayor ed koch. >> having observed a setty improvement in the opportunities and well-being of our citizens, i can report to you that the state of this old but youthful union is good. >> once again in keeping with time-honored tradition i've come to report to you on the state of the union. and i'm pleased to report that america is much improved. and there's good reason to believe that improvement will continue for the days to come. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union.

not the state of our government. but of our american community. and to set forth our responsibilities in the words of our founders to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight our nation is at war. our economy is in recession. and the sismized world faces unprecedented -- civilized world faces unprecedented nature yet the state of our union has never been stronger. >> it's because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward. and the state of our union is strong. >> tuesday, president obama delivers this year's address live on c-span. with our preview program starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern and the president at 9:00. followed by the g.o.p. response and your reaction. the state of the union. tuesday night on c-span.

c-span radio and cespn.org. historian on mary fod lincoln. >> three her four children die. one in the white house and one after her husband's asars nation sitting next to her at the theater. the kinds of grief this woman was going through, amazing. but folks demonized her for that and thought she was crazy. well, we found out she wasn't crazy. but mary todd was a very significant person. and i hope someday we get a better view of the range of things that influenced her life. not just the tragedy. >> c-span's new series, first ladies, influence and image. a first of its kind project for television, comprg the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady. season one begins in just over a week. on presidents' day, february 18, at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio

and c-span.org. >> quong's debate over fiscal issues is not affecting general electric, jeffrey immelt saying it's having a bigger impact on small and medium sized businesses. mr. immelt was part of a discussion on manufacturing hosted by the atlantic magazine on thursday. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> thanks so much for joining us. i want to start big picture. it has been a rough couple of years for the economy. people keep referring to the tantalizing signs of manufacturing revival. manufacturing jobs are up to about 400,000. they are down roughly 6 million in the prior 11 years.

is what we are seeing a dead cat bounce? is something going on here? is there a manufacturing renaissance in america? what are you seeing? >> is the u.s.'s manufacturing more competitive than it has been in the past? yes. there are a number of drivers. in high-tech manufacturing, material innovation is happening. there is a lot of innovation and advanced manufacturing. materials are higher than it was in the past versus labor. the energy construct is being created by shale gas. the ability of u.s. companies to sell around the world and export in the markets that are growing.

in the case of manufacturing, the future has a chance to be different from the past. we are at our most competitive in my 30 years on a globally relative basis. how does that translate to jobs? it is a more complicated equation on around productivity and other elements. will it go from 9% to 20%? that is unlikely. could you see a steady increase of manufacturing jobs in the u.s.? that is likely to happen. whether you get all 5 million back, i do not know. there will be productivity. there is a bigger opportunity for more content in the u.s. today. >> jack welsh once said the

ideal situation for multinational is you put your factory on a barge and move around the world to whatever location has the best set of competitive operating environment at the time. that model went too far. you, yourself, in a speech suggested that the outsourcing trend have gone too far. one of the trends people are talking about is the re-shoring. businesses are coming back to america. we have a lot of anecdotes. it is hard to tell whether the trend has changed. what have you seen? has ge made a decision that went too far in that direction? >> i do not think about it in terms of off-shoring re-shoring. i think of it in terms of competitiveness. there are two different

things. one is globalization. globalization is where you go try to sell your product to people who are buying them. that means you get to add capability to the company. i was in four countries in africa. each could be $1 billion in the near future. you may have 70% of the content in the u.s. and 30% locally. globalization is not a bad thing. it gets lumped and cast. it is a thing called outsourcing. that was a lot of what happened in the 1980's and 1990's. virtually everything we have done has been how to access local markets. when you look back on manufacturing and looking at putting it in different places,

the record is mixed. a lot of it has not worked. for a variety of reasons. supply chain reasons. innovation reasons. when i look at the vast majority of what ge makes, we want the manufacturing close to the innovators. we want to be close to the markets we sell to. does that mean a vast majority of jobs suddenly come back? the extent to which we brought outsourcing piece -- it is because of where we used to make things, we thought we would earn higher margins by making them in the united states. >> what are some of the elements in the process? where are you finding that there was extra value to be had been closer to home? >> supply chain and materials. if you take the majority of our products, if you can get a one percentage higher yield in the

material we use, it offsets any labor one way or the other. we use high-tech materials. we do them in a consistent way. that is where i would say. supply chain shrinkage. you go from a world where oil is $12 a barrel for 30 years to a world where oil is $100 per barrel. the length of time it takes to ship something is quite material. there is nothing that is a panacea. we will create jobs here and in china and a lot of different places. we are a global company. i will never apologize for that. there is a competitive structure today that works for the united states. it is based on proximity to market, high skilled workforce around materials and the ability to innovate. >> high skills is a key thing. whether or not this benefits

the american worker is a huge question. 20 years ago when people thought of going to work in a plant as manufacturing, is the factory job of today different from the factory job of 20 or 30 years today -- ago? >> i hope so. it is similar in some ways and different in some way. if you work for ge, and you assemble jet engines. you go to a factory in north carolina. it has maybe 400 production workers and one manager. you do all lead manufacturing. you do all continuous process flow. the teams drive the productivity. you have empowered teams on the floor. you have sophisticated materials, titanium coming together that is being assembled by people that are

working in teaming structures. that is different. in some ways it is the same. in some ways, focus on speed, it is different than what it was when i started. >> if a neighbor asked you for a job at that plant. what is your advice to him? what is your advice to him? this is the education you need. >> the first thing you want to do is say that there -- we have people that have different aspirations. you want them to understand where they will be. i would say if you are 22 years old, and you want to project ahead, and you are coming in through a community college, you have to be able to do

additive manufacturing. you will have to know some computer skills. you will have to have some classic artisan skills. i would encourage them to have a facility-run computer. they have to be able to be competitive and work in teams. we have an initiative called get skills to work, which takes veterans and puts them in the manufacturing environment. they know teaming and competition. we need to package their skills in a different way. >> did america produce the enough people to carry out those skills? >> the whole community college skills training in the united states is one of the places where we can focus.

one of the guys that has been on the panel today from manpower did a great job, which is framing how other people do it and how other countries do it. the government of vietnam trains 15,000 welders every year. that is a government program. it is a ready supply of people into the workforce. i think we can still orchestrate what are the skills needed and how do we get the people with the skills in the workforce. >> it will be hard to persuade our congress to look at vietnam as a model. people need to think outside the box. what are some of the initiatives you would like to see us doing at the community level? is there a model in germany that works better in terms of integrating school and work force?

>> we put a bunch of aviation jobs in mississippi, an extremely high flow from the universities there from engineering and materials science. also, a great training program they had in place. we have people repurposed. that was a great public-private partnership with the state of mississippi. a lot of this happens on the local level. it is a combination of governor or mayor and the community college and the company and the university that can pull together. we will need 500 welders. we will need 20 process engineers. how do we get those people? 30 small businesses located around that. it is not so much in washington.

i see it more in the states, colorado, mississippi. places that can pull it off. community colleges, which have been neglected here, are key to this process. >> let us talk about the mississippi plan. the decision to bring in contractors to work no engines, there was an interesting case study. was there a chance that the jobs would not go to the united states? tell me about the process of how you thought about changing the process and the locations and why we chose mississippi, alabama. >> we have this incredible backlog of engines. there is a real transformation going on in the aviation space. we can see four or five years ago a wave coming into the system. we need suppliers. in europe.

some in japan. we saw the rapidity of which we had to go down the learning curve as we launched the engines that meant we wanted more capability closer to home. we have to do engine after engine and part after part. the learning curve is steep. we want to have it closer to home. that was a strategic decision to say, we want to invest more in the supply chamber and in the aviation business. we look for a little bit of diversity in states. we are looking for places where we can get good workers. a place that we can scale over time where we can get in with 500 workers and scale it to a thousand or build other locations around supply chain capabilities. any one of our businesses probably do work in 20 states around the country.

we try to have a diversity. we also look for places where we can launch new capability. >> you must hear discussion about tax advantages. how important is that? >> the training and education is more important. a jet engine lasts 40 or 50 years. what ever decision you make today will change at some point in those 40 or 50 years. if you are in a place you hate, that cannot deliver the people, you will hate it for 40 years. the education and training programs are at the top of the list for me. it does not mean we do not go after the other stuff. the people always dictate how well a place goes. >> going back to the team of re-shoring, there is attention to labor costs going up and

china. a lot of the rural labor is gone. that is why there is downward pressure on wages in the united states. people are thinking of this manufacturing revival as pure reversal of the cost arbitrage. that is overplayed. >> it is about markets. if you want to win today, you have to be agile around markets and have a good flexible supply chain. wages are going to fluctuate to meet markets. in many ways, everybody here knows that wages have been stagnant.

the bigger piece that has happened in the last 30 years is materials are more expensive. steel, titanium, oil distribution. all of the materials you use. if you look at a relatively basic product like a refrigerator, a refrigerator has -- if you make it the right way, it is a simple product. it has 1.8 hours of labor. two hours of labor. if you are running the place right, you have -- it is more about the possibility. material goes up and down. on a high-tech product, if your yield on a turbine blade goes

down 1%, that is tens of millions of dollars. if labor causes that, that is too cheap or too expensive. >> there is a study out last year looking at the future of manufacturing. one of the key takeaways is how many jobs in manufacturing do not fit our traditional notion of what a manufacturing job is. they are more like services. is that one of your experiences that this non-labor -- things like the r&d is much higher than it used to be. you are drawn much more to the intellectual horsepower. >> it is not just in the labs. in the technical products, the product is the process. there is this indigenous nature between what a designer sees

and how it gets made. you cannot separate it. the manufacturing technology gets done alongside the prior technology. it does not mean you cannot do it in a distributive way. we will have factories around the world that are close to markets. most products today have this incredible linkage between the design and how to manufacture it. we purchase $13 billion from small and medium companies. our supply chain and how they fit in into the total structure is important. >> one of the exciting stories in manufacturing is 3-d manufacturing. is this overhyped? a lot of talk about it. is this a game-changer?

>> additive manufacturing and advanced welding -- if you look at a company like ours, we make incredible --at our core, we are a materials company. what is the common thread between gas turbines and jet engines? it is material technology. that is who we are. we do unique shapes. a shape of a turbine blade may be the difference in one or two points of fuel burn and the way a jet engine works. that is billions of dollars for our customers in terms of performance.

you get a block of something. you weld. you take this scrap. it goes someplace. 3-d printing allows you to make that product right the first time. it allows you to make it from the core up so you do not have as much waste. the tooling is cheaper. the cycle is faster. that is the holy grail. if i thought all 3-d printing could do is your shoes, i would not be talking about it quite as much as i do today. if you can make unique shapes with high-tech materials in a short amount of time, that is worth my time. >> i am sitting on an airplane and someone tells me, those turbine blades are made on a printer. i am not thinking that is a smart idea of me to get in the plane. >> close your eyes. listen and fall asleep.

>> products have high loads. they have to need the highest standards of tolerance. >> we are proving it right now. some of our new engines have advanced materials. some are made that way. small to start with. content will grow over time. this is one of the things -- there is stuff that is like a cartoon. there is stuff that you say, this is worth time, attention, money, and effort. this is the latter, not the former. >> does it open up the possibility of more customizable manufacturing?

it used to be that manufacturing was about making economies of scale of millions of the same thing. is it back to craft like? >> speed, both in terms of cycle, how long it takes, and where you can do it and how fast. if this works the way we think, it should reduce the cycle of how long it takes to produce and design a new gas turbine. we would have thought about a new gas turbine taking five years to design. maybe you can do it in two. >> do you deliver a different gas turbine to every customer? >> you get into service models. it does give you in some areas the ability to do more customization. >> let us go to the policy

front. seven days ago, you were released from one of your obligations. the jobs of competitive counsel would be finishing up its work. tell me about your two years there. was it worthwhile? were those the two best years of your life? being the ambassador of business for the administration? >> we were having so much fun. i was honored to serve. i am glad i did it. i enjoyed the people that were on the council. a lot more republicans than democrats. we worked well together. it is a challenging time. we try to be as pragmatic as we could be. we had recommendations that could be done with executive orders. we chopped through most of those. it is hard to get bipartisan legislation. we had to invest in

infrastructure. doing an infrastructure bank or other ways to build roads and the kinds of things that will make us competitive in the long term. that is the kind of thing that is hard. how does it get funded? we did the best we could. >> this would be a great time to take a small break. i would like to invite up three more panelists --margaret brennan, howard snyder, and john harwood. they will subject you to the brutal questions that i did not get around to. jump in if there are any questions that you have.

>> when it comes to the relationship with those you are employing. when you talk to people who are looking for a job now or have looked for the past 10 years, the new task at understanding is that a corporation providing you with healthcare or any benefit is really an add-on. it is extra. companies seem to want to keep you temporarily employed or up to just the level where they would have to provide you with something more beyond just hourly pay. is that the new understanding between workers and corporations? has that model changed? >> i do not think so. we invest $1 billion in training. we have never shirked on that. we add a lot of people to the

company every year. they get health care and pension plans. our healthcare programs have changed to be more competitive. for new employees, the pension plans have changed to be more competitive. we like having a ge company. culture is important. it means something to be a ge employee. >> what percentage of your employees are temp? >> we have temporary workers. we have 300,000 full-time ge employees. that is a city. we still have that. we have to manage workloads. we still do temporary workers. the majority are full-time employees.

[indiscernible] there is temporary work that still goes on. we do not bring in full-time people. we hire a lot every year. we still have benefits. we still think culture is good. >> this debate going on in europe seems to be a wholesale reevaluation of the special contract over there and what the labor rules will be. what health and pension benefits will look like. when you are deciding to deploy the next investment, how much are you paying attention to the political signals coming out from individual countries? you could go almost anywhere. how much is the political signaling playing into the decision?

>> we listen to it. we worry about it. we think about it. our stuff long-term, these people change. the attitudes change. the country dynamics change. it is hard to say, i like germany because i like chancellor merkel. i think she will be more stable. that can change so quickly. today, most of the investment is around markets. if you do not think europe will grow because of the way the government is structured, you

will not invest as much there. if you think northern africa or nigeria or russia will grow, you will be willing to take more risks there because you think the growth is there. to a certain extent, where you seek political upheaval, it scares away investment. the world is so competitive, if you do not focus on markets, if you are not ready to win in markets, you will lose. >> how much of this can be a parochial discussion? let us say ge is a u.s. company, but let us talk about the european or asian companies that may be interested in investing on this side of the world. what will the u.s. due to distinguish itself? >> investment certainty. we need somehow not to have all of the focus on sequestration, debt limits. that is distracting to investors. the systems of competitiveness. education, regulation. tax reform.

those things that say we want people to invest in the u.s. our fdi in the country has trailed a lot of other places in the world. some of it is education training. there are systems of competitiveness. we know what they are. it is trying to get more of a window on that. it also helps -- the president of the united states says i want people to invest in the united states. i want to create manufacturing. that is helpful. >> let me ask you about the policy debate. there is no need to be usually exclusion.

on the democratic side, you have an emphasis on all of government. obama has a center for manufacturing. you talk about human capital and infrastructure investments. on the other side, republicans emphasize less government, less regulation, lower rates. when you think about those solutions, which has more relative importance in terms of benefiting manufacturing? >> you will not get a clear answer from me. [laughter] the history of the world as we know it so far is that institutions like darpa and the nih created an immense amount of innovation and jobs and spawned entire industries. the notion that says that government can never play a role, can never be a catalyst

for innovation and change would be to disprove what has existed for a generation. i would leave that as a foundational point. in the last 20 years, the amount of regulation has grown and grown and grown. i am a business guy. i am supposed to complain about regulation. no country in the world follows us anymore. no one looks at the usa and says, that is a great practice. it would be a refutation of what exists to say that darpa has not had an immense impact on the industrial sector of the united states. the entrepreneurial is the best in the world bar none.

the government can play a catalytic role. we do too much that is not conducive to competitiveness and a growing business. >> what is an example of a regulation that the obama administration has promulgated that is a ridiculous drag on growth? >> think about cycle times of the fda. think about the fact that it takes 12 years to get a power line permitted across state lines. read the reports. we spelled out a number of them. every permit should be approved in less than 24 months. there are jobs there. i guarantee it. there is no excuse for anybody not to have a short cycle time. >> you say that to obama. what does he say? >> he stepped in on the jobs council and said we will shorten this one. there are 28 permits that the president stepped in and said, bang, here we go. one may say the entire epa needs to be reformed. he says, i am not quite there

yet. in some specific -- a lot of action. and others -- there is a lot more to do. i would not listen to jeffrey immelt. i would benchmark us compared to others moving ahead. when i am in africa selling locomotives, i am not competing against any u.s. company. i am competing against global players. regulation is a good thing to work on.

>> on the question of accessing markets, if you are selling markets, you want access to consumers. where is it that you would want to see more of a free trade access-type model? >> on both sides? >> in the u.s., there has been focus on the transpacific partnerships and ways to tap into asia. where do you need government help to open up a market? >> we would like more bilateral or more multilateral free trade agreements. we believe the ttp would be great. a better extension into europe.

they are all outstanding. we are for all of that. >> is that relationship with needing to get the government to open the door more important in asia than europe? >> asia is harder than europe. tpp is particularly important. for us, we get there. i am here to play two roles. as the ceo of ge, i could get any place. i could sell myself anywhere. for a $2 billion american company to win in asia, a tpp would be helpful. >> ge has had a complex relationship in china with its investment there. has this administration put a lot of energy into trying to sort out the intellectual property issues? >> it is a long-term process.

the president is engaging. he has avoided following every wave of controversy. he has tried to stay long-term focused. a relationship between china and the united states is important. let try to see through the bumps in the road to have a longer- term view. it is a complicated relationship for companies and governments. the two biggest economies in the world have to have a relationship. we cannot afford not to engage. there are problems with intellectual property. we are better off with the u.s. government being engaged. it is a two-way street with the administration and china. >> does that mean in the argument obama had with romney where romney said declare china a currency manipulation and obama said no, that's

counterproductive, do you agree with obama? 44:55 >> yes here is the role of the president is to have this broad perspective that last longer than the debate was. think about a world where the two biggest economies in the world did not do business together. it is hard to imagine. it is an important relationship even though it is complicated. >> globalization has been a good thing. you could argue that. you could argue that it is an evitable.

that living standards have been raised for so many people in the world. that is a good thing. to the average american, how do you make the case that our relationship with china has delivered on the promise that people thought it held? >> billions of dollars of exports going out the door. has is been good for american workers? >> it is a complicated story. there are instances where you will not be able to make the case today. if the world ended today, and you did a tally sheet, you will have various countries where you would say this one did not work as well as the other. on the five percent of people

in the world live outside -- 85% of people in the world live outside the united states. we have to figure out a way to access that and do our best to create a win-win. rich and i would have different perspectives on this. at least i understand his perspective. i may not agree. we have to do as good a job we can of creating win-win situations knowing that in any given year it may not be perfect. my story is more complicated. i will see it through a different prism in the afl-cio will. ultimately, i completely believe that globalization is a good thing. it is inevitable and can be made to be shared more broadly.

>> the tax system -- during the republican primary campaign, rick santorum had a zero tax rate for manufacturers. is that a good idea or dumb idea? >> i would take some derivative of sensibles where you would simplify the tax system immensely, lower the rate, go to a global system like our competitors. start there. we do not need anything more controversial to that. there are more details that have to be put in place. that kind of system gives everything we need to be as competitive as we can possibly be. that is what i would cheer for. >> are you disappointed that there has been little attention to the corporate tax side? you have the sequester coming up. do you believe that the tax and

deficit debate is harmful to the business environment now? >> the uncertainty is back. the amount of -- the uncertainty is bad. you go from the fiscal cliff to the deficit debate to sequestration. that is inherently disruptive to business investment. certainty is a good multiplier. we are these long cycle businesses that have global competition. i do not have the lecture he to say that i will quit investing for six months until this is resolved. i will keep going.

the people who can hurt the worst by all of this are the small and medium businesses. the people that have no buffer. that get confused. these are the people that are the heart of the u.s. economy. they are the ones that are constantly being bombarded as we go from one to another. this can only be solved here. this is one of the few cases where the business roundtable of people speak with one voice. it would be great to get a resolution. >> there is a divide in the corporate side on the corporate tax front. large companies would benefit more from corporate tax reform, especially going to a territorial system, then smaller firms. it may be hard to convince americans that the president and congress should invest time in that priority.

it looks like corporations are doing well. the average american is not doing so well. what is the case for why that should be a political priority? >> would it be that unfair to ask for the same taxes that global competitors have? i do not think it is. did me a playing field that i can do the things you want me to do, which is compete effectively. that is not un-american. i have different needs in the ceo of walmart. we should have a tax system that allows us to compete with relevant competitors in the world they are in.

i would ask for the same system. that is what simpson-bowles has evolved to. companies adjust. what i like everything in corporate tax form? no. we will adjust. we would like a system where we could compete. we are the last american company in that industry. >> where our american wages headed? >> the wages will improve. >> how much? we have seen that push to squeeze productivity out of workers. they are asked to do more with much less. >> you make it seem like if you went to a factory, this is a charles dickens/r. >> no, i am not. >> you can eat off the floor of the manufacturing facilities. we want a workforce that is well-trained with a low turnover, where the people are productive, and they will not stay in a place where they do not feel fairly complicated. we should play them

appropriately -- we should pay them appropriately. it is a big problem. it is a big problem. it is a vestige of globalization. i do not know how to reverse this fact of needing to drive productivity, trying to develop a good workforce, give people good jobs, and invest in the future. >> you said and put determine where you invest. natural gas has been a hot topic in the business community. a company chose to invest in the u.s. and a decade because it

could run their plans for a cheap rate because of the cost of natural gas. is it simply natural gas? is there something there that really can be a trigger in the u.s. to increase manufacturing? >> shale gas is one of the bigger things that i have seen in my career that is a game changer.

it is plentiful in this country. it is available. we have a pipeline system. the pricing may not be as low as it is now. it will stay low and create jobs. will it be a reinvest realization? it could be all of the above. it is a significant factor. this country should be very interested. every citizen in the u.s. should be interested in how we develop natural resources. it is important. it could lead to a variety of options in terms of how you create more wealth and more jobs. >> can i go back, mr. scrooge, to the sequester issue?

you have a fundamental split between republicans and democrats. republicans say do spending cuts only. obama says no. you will hurt seniors. you will cut the capital investment. if we do spending cuts, we should do revenues as well. >> i think that there is no way to solve the problem without taking an approach somewhat like simpson-bowles. you had $4 trillion over 10 years. you have $2.5 trillion of cost reductions and about $1.2 trillion of revenue. you will have to do both. there is a scoreboard in washington to see who is winning and losing. i will leave that to you. >> you are saying obama is right.

we need revenue as well as cuts. >> you need significant entitlement reform. you can win by losing by not acknowledging that this has to be substantial and it has to be now. rather than me endorsing the president or speaker boehner. i have done 1000 acquisitions.

i have done maybe 10,000 business deals in 30 years. i have never done one without meeting with the other side. i cannot remember doing one negotiation -- i went all of my arguments in my conference room. it is only when i open up the door that the world stinks. i came to talk about manufacturing than this. i would feel better if they started meeting. i just do not know how anything gets done unless you sit and negotiate. this is can be a catalyst. you can have a point of view. this work has to be here by people compromising and negotiating and stopped by -- i wish i could find a way to buy a company or deal with a customer without meeting them.

>> you said that we do need more revenue. >> i do not want that to be the seminal point. i am not here to endorse either one. >> do you think he intends to accomplish entitlement reform or is he so walking that? >> -- slow-walking that? >> i am not here to take either the side of the president or the side of republicans. i am here to say, let us get a negotiated certainty so we can all invest and grow the economy and do what we want to do.

that is what i am calling for. i would feel better if they were meeting. i do not see how the other stuff works. >> it seems that one of the things that gets lost in the discussion is that there are different ways of reducing the deficit. the long-term problem is entitlements. we have taken about $2.5 trillion off the total. all of the investment that the government does is discretionary.

it is r&d. we keep hammering away at the federal government that plants the seeds for future growth while not dealing with the real problem. has the d bates gotten skewed and that we have failed to make >> there are a lot of content that it will prepare readiness. if he go back 30 or 40 years there is a lot of innovation that started on the defense side. as you see, the restraint on the pentagon plus those that will come into play, do you think that has negative impacts on the competitive manufacturing. >> i do not know enough about it. we are not a big player in that

space anymore. i think a little bit of a catalyst is something that you see in every corner of the world. i do not go to one place where there is no government at all. there is a little bit of a role. the private sector is very strong and innovative and we should be happy about the unfair premier real spirit. the private sector can pick up a lot depending on how the government is restructured. there will be such a value in getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust and get forward. the sigh of relief and -- i think is so important right now.

>> just so it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. i want everybody to know we can compete. there are markets to be had. the workforce when directed and trained is as good as any in the world. please know that. >> thank you very optimistic note. thank you. [applause] . >> president obama talks about sequestration and tax policy. the senator from alaska delivers the republican address. she offers her clever and energy for the united states. >> over the last few years democrats and republicans have cut our deficit by more than $2.50 trillion to a mix of

spending cuts and hired tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. that is more than halfway toward the four trillion dollars that you elected officials say we need to stabilize our debt. i believe we can finish the job the same but we started it with a balanced mix of more spending cuts and tax reform. the overwhelming majority of the american people agree. my preference and the preference of many members of congress is to do that and a balanced and comprehensive web making sensible changes to entitlement programs and reforming the tax code. both the house and the senate are working toward budget proposals that led up the balance path going forward. the budget process takes time. right now, if congress does not act by march 1, a series of harmful automatic cuts to just creating -- the sequester is

scheduled to take effect. the result is a huge blow to middle-class families and the economy as a whole. if it is a lot to go forward, about the americans who work in fields like clean energy are likely to be laid off. firefighters and food inspectors confronted sells out of work leaving the communities vulnerable. small businesses could be prevented from getting the resources and support they need to keep the doors open people with disabilities winning for benefits could be placed -- it forced to wait even longer. economic progress could be put at risk. then there is the impact of the military readiness. the military is forced to delay an aircraft carrier forced to

deploy to the gulf. changes like this effect are ability to respond to threats and an unstable part of the world. we will be forced to make more tough decisions and the week ahead of congress fails to act the good news is, there is another option. we faced a similar deadline two months ago and instead of making cuts that would cost jobs, democrats and republicans come together and made responsible cuts and manage a book changes to the tax code that will bring down the deficit. congress should pass a similar set of cuts and clothes more loopholes and took a can find a way to replace the sequestered with a longer-term solution. most members of congress including many republicans to not think it is and get idea to put jobs at risk in the unnecessary damage to the economy. the current plan puts the burden of avoiding cuts and seniors and middle-class families.

they would rather ask more from the vast majority of americans then close a single tax loophole that benefits the wealthy. we have made good progress toward reducing the deficit and a balanced way. there is no way we can i keep chipping away at the problem and go with that middle class families and small businesses should suffer because washington cannot come together and eat them eight tax loopholes or government programs that do not work. at a time when economists and business leaders have said the economy is poised for progress, we should not allow a self- inflicted wounds to put the progress in jeopardy. my message is this. let's keep working together to solve the problem and give our workers and businesses the support they need to grow and to thrive. thank you and have a great weekend. >> in the the new congress i

continue to serve as the lead republican on the energy and national resources committee and i want to discuss the tremendous opportunities that await us and the opportunities it. and agee has been a source of anxiety since the 1970's. thanks to new technologies, an era of scarcity is giving way to one of abundance. we have a 90% year of supply of new gas to eliminate opec for decades and a broader range of options for alternatives and the efficiency. there may never have a been a time when america has had more potential for energy production were better ability to use energy wisely. we recognize that all is not well. adds the production of public lands owned by the federal of government stayed flat or fell in the recent years. the energy infrastructure has aged. the price of oil as high in the

need for reliable energy has never been more urgent. projects are hamstrung by regulations, delayed permits and regulation. the energy sector which has improved in some respects, but we cancelled the man the better. we should demand a better. to take full advantage of the opportunities and to face up to the energy challenges, i released the report entitled energy 2020, at a prison for the american energy future. it is based on a simple and site. energy is good. edgy provides the basis of modern society and allows us to provide lives. as we found out during the power outage, it is important to professional football. energy is not a necessary evil.

energy is good. that is why it is and our national interest to make it abundant, affordable, divorce -- givers, and secure. our talents that is to allow federal policy to align with them. my blueprint offer is 200 recommendations. they span the spectrum of resources and reforms from the approval of the keystone pipeline to a trust fund for energy resource paid for with the new production. every recommendation is associated with a clear goal from the year 2020. we can end its dependence on will pepper oil. we can make energy more repetitive and build on our gains and reestablish the supply chain for critical minerals. we can ensure it research and

not and less regulation is the force behind innovation. through sensible and regulatory reforms we can prevent the misuse of reforms and allow products to receive it. we can maintain the highest environmental standards and the burled. the ideas and my blueprint would create new jobs, generate new revenues and slash the dependence on foreign energy. shore up security and strengthen the economy. help us minimize the dependence on energy development and reduce the emissions. it is true my blueprint does not rely on do mandates or new regulations to achieve these goals. it does not drive up taxes or energy prices. it does not limit choice or a lavish subsidies. there are some who continue to believe those options represent the only path forward.

that is wrong. there is a resource that must be protected on tap and undisturbed, that is you, the american tax payer. not every member of the congress will support every proposal and my blueprint. it is intended to provoke a better discussion about energy to recognize how bright our future canby and to provide a prudent alternative to the heavy-handed approach is from the administration and the epa. we can do better. we can agree imagine our energy policies. it can help guide the way. i want to thank you for listening. if you are interested and listening to 20-20, it is on my website. tea was so much. >> next, a funeral service for ed koch.

\] a discuss and to bring up a news coverage to afghanistan. this week, david cameron discusses the state of the british economy, housing benefits, and the passing of the same-sex marriage bill. >> what i have discussed -- discovered is that the worst strategy to achieve happiness estimate that your primary goal. if you make happiness with your striving for, you will probably not achieve it. you will end up being narcissistic and self involved, caring about your own pleasures and satisfactions and life as a paramount goal. i found happiness is a byproduct of other things. meaningful work and family and

friends and good health and love and care. we get happiness, and the directly for above by throwing ourselves into projects involving fundamentally to have integrity and being a good person. >> john mackey examines how it can lead to a better world. sunday night at 9:00 on the "after words." like us on facebook. -- they comeon pos here because of the events that

happened here in 1775. people did not realize that what actually did happen here is still a genuine historical mystery. we have a very few records about what actually occurred on the night that paul revere's plan was carried out. we know there was a plan. had been set up ahead of time with the motion across the way. he set it up on sunday. what we do not know is who helped him carry out the plan. >> the mystery of the old north church lamp hankers on american artifacts. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> on monday, michael blumberg and bill clinton praised ed and bill clinton praised ed